we hold these truths to be...
Posted: Thu Sep 05, 2024 6:11 pm
''We hold these truths to be self-evident, that
all men are created equal''
That is perhaps the central point of the American experiment....
that the essential aspect of the American experiment is
equality.... that all men/human beings are equal....
the equation is that equality and justice are the same
thing... equality is the equal administration of justice
to all... but it also has a third meaning...which is tolerance....
we cannot treat others equally if we treat them with
intolerance.... from my handy-dandy dictionary...
Tolerance: the ability or willingness to tolerate something,
in particular the existence of opinions or behaviors that
one does not necessarily agree with....
tolerance makes the concept of equality/justice work....
for we cannot have equality without tolerance...
tolerance is the fluid that allows equality/justice to work...
a democracy must have equality/justice and tolerance....
otherwise, there is no democracy....for equality, the notion
that all men/human beings are created equal, that everyone
has a right to hold to beliefs and values and to EXPRESS
those beliefs and values, just as I have the right to both
hold and express my own beliefs and values.....
tolerance of those expressions of values and beliefs is
expressly stated in the constitution....
the First amendment the guarantees freedoms of
religion, expression, assembly, and the right to petition....
that congress cannot, CANNOT prohibit, from restricting
the press, and the individuals right to free speech or religion.....
that is legal tolerance... acceptance of one's right to freely act
and express speech....
to be intolerant, is to reject the basic premises that,
''that all men/human beings are created equal''...
to reject gays from marrying or having sex, is intolerance...
and thus a rejection of the basic American concept of equality..
to prevent people from cross-dressing or having a drag show is
intolerance, and antithetical to the basic idea that ''all people
are create equal''
that we legislate morality must come to a larger point that just
being disgusted by certain behaviors.... in the Middle East,
the public display of kissing is legislated against as being against
public morality.... that is to say, that behavior that is normal
behavior by couples, the public display of affection is also
an act of intolerance..... it is a denial of the ''all men/
human beings are created equal'' that public displays
of affection are an affront to god, is a superstition....
as noted before, people are at very different stages of
the road to becoming human.... to accept that people,
couples are and will continue to express themselves,
by kissing and other acts, is to accept tolerance
of people..... just because you can't/won't do it, doesn't
mean you must prevent others from their own expression
of love by public displays of affection.... that is a violation
of the precept of equality/justice.....
But Kropotkin, people have a right to determine their own fate,
yes, yes they do, but that doesn't mean they have a right to
determine the rights of others by the practice of inequality,
of intolerance.... but Kropotkin, in doing so, you basically
are allowing all types of behaviors... decent and indecent.....
there is no legislation of morals or ethics.... but of course
there are other concerns at work here.....
One of the primary psychological needs of people, is for safety/security....
that is one of the driving forces of human needs.... and that is a need
we must respect..... to ensure safety/security is to legislate
against violence toward people.... I have a right to commit violence
against people is a form of intolerance....but does the act
of public affection a form of a violation towards others?
Not that I can see... it has nothing to do with others watching
public acts of affection..... but violence is a violation of
the safety/security aspect of human existence... but displays
of public affection does not meet that criteria...
thus, you can separate out forms of actions and words
that can be legislated against because they violate
basic human needs....
people having sex on the stairs of city hall is, granted
disturbing, but it doesn't violate any safety/security needs
or for that matter, any other human values....
thus, we can hold that a violation of the basic human needs
either bodily or psychologically, is punishable, falls into
the state of being legislated against...
so, what is morals/ethics? a violation of the basic human
needs that we all have as human beings.... among those
human needs of food, water, shelter, health care, education....
to violate those needs, is worthy of legislation against them...
but also the psychological needs that must be met....
the need for safety/security is primary here...
but the other psychological needs of the esteem of others,
of love, of the sense of belonging... these needs are almost
impossible to legislate....but they are nevertheless vastly
important to human beings.... and must be keep in mind
when ethics/morality/or legislation is pondered.....
So, when asking, on what grounds are we to keep our ethics and
morality on? I would reject god, religions, faith or even laws...
I would suggest that we legislate based on the understanding
of human needs.... we legislate against violence toward people
based on the psychological needs of people because that
is one of the primary needs of human beings... to feel
safe and secure... to prevent people from getting food or water
or shelter is another area of legislation that we can consider...
and the welfare state of countries is just a means of allowing
people to achieve those bodily needs....
every single human being, because they are human,
deserves to have food, water, shelter, health care,
education..... to met those bodily needs is the focus
and basis of legislation... and the psychological
needs of safety/security is one of the primary
functions of a state/society.... we cannot legislate
esteem or a sense of belonging,
but we can legislate safety/security....
but we can allow others who don't hold to our values,
say gays or trans people the same right as we demand,
to love who we want to love... thus any laws restricting
human beings from loving another, is wrong.... but Kropotkin,
you have just allowed minors being sex partners with adults...
not at all....again, what is the safety/security aspect of being
human? that we are safe and secure... to allow adults to
have sex with children doesn't do that.... we know,
from children, that having sex with adults creates
serious psychological issues with children... that is a fact...
and to protect children, to insure their safety/security,
we prevent, we legislate against children having sex before the
age of 18... and adults from having sex with children before
the age of 18.... again, it becomes a question of meeting
our needs and the needs of children.... allowing children to
have sex with adults doesn't meet the needs of children,
although it might meet the needs of adults, we cannot
allow that.... to protect the needs of children we ban
sex with adults.... laws pared with common sense are usually
the way to go...
Kropotkin
all men are created equal''
That is perhaps the central point of the American experiment....
that the essential aspect of the American experiment is
equality.... that all men/human beings are equal....
the equation is that equality and justice are the same
thing... equality is the equal administration of justice
to all... but it also has a third meaning...which is tolerance....
we cannot treat others equally if we treat them with
intolerance.... from my handy-dandy dictionary...
Tolerance: the ability or willingness to tolerate something,
in particular the existence of opinions or behaviors that
one does not necessarily agree with....
tolerance makes the concept of equality/justice work....
for we cannot have equality without tolerance...
tolerance is the fluid that allows equality/justice to work...
a democracy must have equality/justice and tolerance....
otherwise, there is no democracy....for equality, the notion
that all men/human beings are created equal, that everyone
has a right to hold to beliefs and values and to EXPRESS
those beliefs and values, just as I have the right to both
hold and express my own beliefs and values.....
tolerance of those expressions of values and beliefs is
expressly stated in the constitution....
the First amendment the guarantees freedoms of
religion, expression, assembly, and the right to petition....
that congress cannot, CANNOT prohibit, from restricting
the press, and the individuals right to free speech or religion.....
that is legal tolerance... acceptance of one's right to freely act
and express speech....
to be intolerant, is to reject the basic premises that,
''that all men/human beings are created equal''...
to reject gays from marrying or having sex, is intolerance...
and thus a rejection of the basic American concept of equality..
to prevent people from cross-dressing or having a drag show is
intolerance, and antithetical to the basic idea that ''all people
are create equal''
that we legislate morality must come to a larger point that just
being disgusted by certain behaviors.... in the Middle East,
the public display of kissing is legislated against as being against
public morality.... that is to say, that behavior that is normal
behavior by couples, the public display of affection is also
an act of intolerance..... it is a denial of the ''all men/
human beings are created equal'' that public displays
of affection are an affront to god, is a superstition....
as noted before, people are at very different stages of
the road to becoming human.... to accept that people,
couples are and will continue to express themselves,
by kissing and other acts, is to accept tolerance
of people..... just because you can't/won't do it, doesn't
mean you must prevent others from their own expression
of love by public displays of affection.... that is a violation
of the precept of equality/justice.....
But Kropotkin, people have a right to determine their own fate,
yes, yes they do, but that doesn't mean they have a right to
determine the rights of others by the practice of inequality,
of intolerance.... but Kropotkin, in doing so, you basically
are allowing all types of behaviors... decent and indecent.....
there is no legislation of morals or ethics.... but of course
there are other concerns at work here.....
One of the primary psychological needs of people, is for safety/security....
that is one of the driving forces of human needs.... and that is a need
we must respect..... to ensure safety/security is to legislate
against violence toward people.... I have a right to commit violence
against people is a form of intolerance....but does the act
of public affection a form of a violation towards others?
Not that I can see... it has nothing to do with others watching
public acts of affection..... but violence is a violation of
the safety/security aspect of human existence... but displays
of public affection does not meet that criteria...
thus, you can separate out forms of actions and words
that can be legislated against because they violate
basic human needs....
people having sex on the stairs of city hall is, granted
disturbing, but it doesn't violate any safety/security needs
or for that matter, any other human values....
thus, we can hold that a violation of the basic human needs
either bodily or psychologically, is punishable, falls into
the state of being legislated against...
so, what is morals/ethics? a violation of the basic human
needs that we all have as human beings.... among those
human needs of food, water, shelter, health care, education....
to violate those needs, is worthy of legislation against them...
but also the psychological needs that must be met....
the need for safety/security is primary here...
but the other psychological needs of the esteem of others,
of love, of the sense of belonging... these needs are almost
impossible to legislate....but they are nevertheless vastly
important to human beings.... and must be keep in mind
when ethics/morality/or legislation is pondered.....
So, when asking, on what grounds are we to keep our ethics and
morality on? I would reject god, religions, faith or even laws...
I would suggest that we legislate based on the understanding
of human needs.... we legislate against violence toward people
based on the psychological needs of people because that
is one of the primary needs of human beings... to feel
safe and secure... to prevent people from getting food or water
or shelter is another area of legislation that we can consider...
and the welfare state of countries is just a means of allowing
people to achieve those bodily needs....
every single human being, because they are human,
deserves to have food, water, shelter, health care,
education..... to met those bodily needs is the focus
and basis of legislation... and the psychological
needs of safety/security is one of the primary
functions of a state/society.... we cannot legislate
esteem or a sense of belonging,
but we can legislate safety/security....
but we can allow others who don't hold to our values,
say gays or trans people the same right as we demand,
to love who we want to love... thus any laws restricting
human beings from loving another, is wrong.... but Kropotkin,
you have just allowed minors being sex partners with adults...
not at all....again, what is the safety/security aspect of being
human? that we are safe and secure... to allow adults to
have sex with children doesn't do that.... we know,
from children, that having sex with adults creates
serious psychological issues with children... that is a fact...
and to protect children, to insure their safety/security,
we prevent, we legislate against children having sex before the
age of 18... and adults from having sex with children before
the age of 18.... again, it becomes a question of meeting
our needs and the needs of children.... allowing children to
have sex with adults doesn't meet the needs of children,
although it might meet the needs of adults, we cannot
allow that.... to protect the needs of children we ban
sex with adults.... laws pared with common sense are usually
the way to go...
Kropotkin